Peer Review

This is the publisher-level peer-review process for every journal of Peninsula Publishing Press. It follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME). A journal may apply a stricter rule on its own Peer Review page. It may not apply a weaker one.

What is sent for review

Manuscripts are submitted through ScholarOne (Clarivate). The link for each journal is on that journal’s site. Before external review, the editorial office checks scope, completeness, formatting and similarity. Similarity is checked with Turnitin, including its check for AI-generated text. A manuscript that is out of scope, incomplete, or that fails the similarity check may be returned without external review. The editor may make that scope decision alone or after advice from a member of the editorial board.

Only unpublished work that is not under consideration elsewhere is sent for review. A preprint on a recognised preprint server is not treated as prior publication. See Editorial Policies.

Reviewers

A manuscript that passes screening is reviewed by at least three independent experts, in addition to the handling editor’s own assessment. Reviewers are chosen for expertise in the subject of the manuscript. They are not taken from the authors’ institution, and they must not have collaborated with the authors in the last three years.

Reviewers are invited on the basis of the title and abstract and may accept or decline. A reviewer who declines because the subject is outside their expertise, because they are unavailable, or because they have a conflict of interest, may suggest another suitable reviewer. The editorial office decides whether to use that suggestion. Authors may not nominate the only reviewers of their own paper, and the office does not rely on author-suggested reviewers in a way that would allow the review to be manipulated.

Correspondence with reviewers is confidential. The full text is released only after the reviewer has agreed to review.

Blinding

The blinding model is set by the journal. In every model the reviewer is anonymous to the author, and the reviewer does not contact the author directly.

What reviewers are asked to judge

A report gives the editor an expert view of the manuscript and gives the authors specific comments they can act on. Depending on the type of article, reviewers are asked to consider:

• Whether the work sits within the journal’s scope.
• Whether the writing is clear and complete enough for a reader in the field, and how it could be improved.
• Whether the claims are supported by the methods and the evidence.
• Whether the contribution is original.
• Whether earlier work is described fairly and cited.
• Whether the methods are described in enough detail to be understood and, where relevant, repeated.
• Whether figures and tables are legible and honest.
• Whether the sample, data or sources are adequate for the question asked.
• Whether there are signs of plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, an undeclared conflict of interest, or another ethical problem.

Comments for the authors are sent to the authors. Comments meant only for the editor are not. The editor may edit a report before it is sent if it reveals a reviewer’s identity or is not fit to forward. If reports disagree, the editor may seek an additional reviewer. If the authors dispute a comment, the editor decides whether to accept the response or to seek further advice. The reviewer’s identity stays confidential.

The decision

Reviewers recommend. The handling editor decides. The decision is one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The authors receive the reviewers’ comments with the decision. The date by which a revision is due is stated in the decision letter. A revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief may decline a manuscript even where reviewers have recommended publication, if the final assessment is that it does not meet the journal’s standard. That outcome is rare and the reason is explained to the authors.

If a manuscript is out of scope for the journal that received it, the editor may offer to transfer it to another Peninsula journal of a closer scope. A transfer happens only with the authors’ consent, and the receiving journal makes its own decision.

Editors’ own manuscripts

A manuscript by an Editor-in-Chief, an editorial board member, or a member of Peninsula staff is handled by another editor who was not involved in the work. The author has no access to the review and no part in the decision. This includes the publisher, Dr. Akhmed Kaleel, who is also Editor-in-Chief of MEDAAD.

Confidentiality and privileged information

The manuscript is confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share it, cite it, or use its ideas or data in their own work before publication, unless the authors have agreed in writing. A reviewer who wants a colleague’s help must ask the handling editor first and must not send the manuscript to that colleague unless the editor agrees. Nothing about the manuscript is discussed in public before publication.

Conflicts and citation requests

Reviewers decline, or tell the editor, if they work at the same institution as an author, have collaborated with an author in the last three years, are competing with the work, or have any other tie that could bias the report. They do not write to the authors about that conflict. See Conflict of Interest.

A request that the authors add citations must be relevant to the manuscript. Reviewers and editors do not ask authors to cite their own work, a colleague’s work, or the journal’s articles in order to raise citation counts. Citation manipulation is handled under Research Misconduct and the COPE discussion document on citation manipulation.

Generative AI in review

Peer review depends on the reviewer’s own judgement. Reviewers and editors must not upload a manuscript, any part of it, or a review report to a generative AI tool, including for language editing. Doing so can break confidentiality, author anonymity and data protection. The reviewer remains responsible for the report. The full statement is on the Generative AI page.

Manipulation of peer review

Suspected manipulation of peer review, whether during review or after publication, is handled with the COPE flowcharts for peer-review manipulation. A reviewer who notices possible manipulation tells the editorial office and does not investigate it alone.

Time

The invitation states the date the report is due. A reviewer who needs longer tells the editorial office before that date. A late report may be set aside so that the decision is not held indefinitely.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision once, in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, within 30 days. The appeal must give reasons and evidence. A difference of opinion about how interesting or novel the work is, without evidence that the decision misunderstood the manuscript, is not a ground for appeal. An editor who was not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal. That decision is final. Agreement to reconsider does not promise acceptance, and reconsideration may use the same or new reviewers.

Complaints about process or staff go to support@peninsula-press.ae. They are acknowledged within 5 working days. A complaint about an Editor-in-Chief is handled by the publishing office, which asks the editor for an account and then decides. Ethical complaints follow Research Misconduct.

Peninsula Publishing Press · Peninsula Publishing L.L.C., Dubai · support@peninsula-press.ae · In force 30 October 2026 · COPE Core Practices